The Democrats’ Burisma Bait and Switch

 

They deny Trump the right to present a defense, then complain that he has produced no evidence.

Imagine you get indicted in a swindle. The prosecutors represent that they can prove you and your alleged co-conspirators planned to fleece a major financial institution. You counter that you weren’t fleecing anyone. Sure, you were asking for millions in loans, but the collateral you were prepared to post was real, and so were the businesses in which you were planning to invest the loan proceeds. The capital injection, you thought, would spur the commerce that would enable you to pay off the loan.

When you get to court, though, you are horrified to learn that the judge is excluding your defense. The prosecutors peremptorily assert that it’s all a big lie. The judge doesn’t want to hear your constitutional claims about the rights to present a defense and call witnesses; your motion to subpoena evidence is denied.

Then, at the trial, not only do the prosecutors establish that you planned to take millions from the bank; they tell the jury there was not a shred of evidence that you had any legitimate collateral or business investment prospects. The whole thing, they insist, was a scam. That is, they stop you from presenting your defense, and then they argue that you should be convicted because you have no defense.

It sounds like something out of Kafka. It would never be tolerated in the U.S. judicial system: no competent judge would bar an accused from attempting to prove his defense; and if one did, any conviction would be reversed on appeal. It would not matter whether the prosecutor’s proof was convincing; having one’s day in court means having an opportunity to present any exculpatory evidence.

Yet what I’ve just described is essentially what House Democrats have done to President Trump in the Senate impeachment trial on the matter of the Bidens and Burisma.

One of the most effective summations in the House impeachment managers’ presentation to the Senate on Thursday was given by Representative Sylvia Garcia, a freshman Democrat from Texas who used to be the presiding judge in Houston’s municipal court system. She took direct aim at claims about suspected Biden self-dealing in Ukraine that have been advanced by President Trump and his defenders, particularly House Republicans and Rudy Giuliani, the president’s private lawyer.

The congresswoman was persuasive. Vice President Biden, we’re to believe, had no connection whatsoever to Hunter Biden’s gig at Burisma, the reputedly corrupt Ukrainian energy company on whose board he was lavishly paid to sit. When President Obama’s veep threatened to withhold $1 billion in funding from Ukraine unless the government in Kyiv fired chief prosecutor Viktor Shokin, it had nothing to do with whether Shokin was trying to investigate Burisma. Indeed, it was quite the opposite: Shokin, you see, was utterly without scruples, an obstacle to Western anti-corruption efforts in Ukraine. In squeezing Kyiv to remove him, the vice president was simply carrying out Obama-administration policy, which had the backing of our European Union allies and the International Monetary Fund.

Should Biden have toned down his characteristic bravado in describing how he extorted the Ukrainians during a speech before a friendly audience? Maybe . . . but the point, Democrats maintain, is that he did nothing wrong. What’s more, they say everyone knows he did nothing wrong — including President Trump.

Therefore, the argument goes, when Trump asked President Zelensky for an investigation of the Bidens, it is inconceivable that Trump could actually have been concerned about rooting out corruption. The House impeachment managers scoff at the suggestion that Donald Trump has suddenly become the scourge of corruption in countries, such as Ukraine, that receive hundreds of millions of dollars in foreign aid. There can be no other explanation than that Trump was aiming to damage his likely rival in the 2020 campaign. What’s more, Trump had to have been asking Zelensky, in effect, to lie about Biden — to fabricate a corruption case — because everyone knew the Bidens had done nothing wrong.

It’s a well-conceived story. For all we know, there may be truth to it. After all, Trump’s more sensible defenders point out that even if it was imprudent for Trump to invoke Biden’s name and the specter of domestic politics in his conversation with Zelensky, and even if it was inappropriate for Trump to encourage a foreign government to investigate an American citizen for violations of foreign law, there was nothing illegal about it. Analogously, the fact that Hunter Biden was cashing in on his father’s political influence, and that Joe Biden had a neon-flashing conflict of interest when he took official action that could have benefited his son, does not necessarily mean the Bidens did anything illegal. Maybe Vice President Biden’s actions really were a straightforward, disinterested application of Obama-administration policy. This could be unsavory without being unlawful.

But here is the thing: It is also entirely possible that the Bidens’ actions, whether or not provably illegal, were so objectively suspicious, so suggestive of corruption, that it was perfectly reasonable for Trump to believe that they should be investigated — and that they could have violated American law, as well as Ukrainian law.

The president’s defense has not been given a fair opportunity to prove that. Even though the House impeachment managers are now arguing about Biden corruption allegations in their Senate presentation, the two leaders of the House impeachment inquiry, Adam Schiff and Jerry Nadler, took the position that Republican claims about the Bidens were irrelevant — a partisan red herring to distract from the “real” issues. They steadfastly refused to permit witnesses on that topic (including the Bidens themselves).

Moreover, the president was denied the right to have his counsel participate in the main investigative phase, run by Schiff. So, even though Schiff began the House hearings with an absurd parody version of the Trump–Zelensky conversation, falsely suggesting that Trump had asked Zelensky to “make up dirt” about Biden, the House denied the president the opportunity to prove that he was actually asking for help investigating activity that, objectively, appears quite suspicious and potentially corrupt.

Even if such an investigation would have helped Trump politically, it is a much different scenario if there was a real basis to believe the Bidens’ conduct should be scrutinized. Joe Biden is not immune from investigation just because he is running for president — certainly no more than the president himself is immune (which, obviously, he’s not).

The president has to be given an opportunity to prove his rebuttal case. A trial is not a trial, not in the American tradition, if prosecutors are permitted to level a serious accusation and then deny the accused the right to mount a defense.

Posted in Donald Trump, Politics, Scandals, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

50 of the most obvious Socialists in the House

by Trevor Loudon
I’ve been asked to compile a list of socialists and communists in Congress. A friend of mine was challenged to name “even two socialists in Congress”. Altogether, if you add in Islamist connections I think about 100 members of the House of Representatives would struggle to pass a low-level background security check..but guess what? There are no security checks in Congress.
Here’s my list of 50 of the most obvious socialists in the House, with links to my website Keywiki for the backup evidence. Apologies to the many I’ve omitted. please email me at trevor.newzeal @gmail.com if you’d like to be included in future lists.
Raul Grijalva (D AZ) Has worked closely with the Communist Party USA since at least 1993. A self-described “Alinskyite.” Travelled to Cuba in 2015.
Ami Bera (D CA) Has used Communist Party USA campaign volunteers in 2010, 2014 and 2016. Also close to Democratic Socialists of America.
Nancy Pelosi (D CA) Very close to several key Communist Party USA allies in San Francisco in the 1970s and ’80s. Also some involvement with Democratic Socialists of America.
Barbara Lee (D CA) Lee has been close to the Communist Party USA for decades. In the 1990s she was a leading member of the Communist Party spin-off Committees of Correspondence. Has been to Cuba more than 20 times.
Ro Khanna (D CA) Very close to Democratic Socialists of America.
Salud Carbajal (D CA) Long history with Democratic Socialists of America members.
Judy Chu (D CA) Was heavily involved with the now defunct pro-Beijing Communist Workers Party in the 1970s and ’80s. Still works closely with former members today. China’s best friend in the US Congress.
Raul Ruiz (D CA) Worked closly with Workers World Party members in Massachusetts in the late 1990s.
Karen Bass (D CA) Was actively involved with the Marxist-Leninist group. Line of March in the 1980s. Still works closely with former members. Mentored by a leading Communist Party USA member. Also close to Democratic Socialists of America and someFreedom Road Socialist Organization members. Has been to Cuba at least 4 times.
Maxine Waters (D CA) Long history with the Communist Party USA. Also ties to some Communist Workers Party and Workers World Party fronts. Has employed staff mebers from Democratic Socialists of America and League of Revolutionary Struggle.
Joe Courtney (D CT) Has worked closely with several Communist Party USA leaders.
Rosa DeLauro (D CT) Has worked extremey closely with the Communist Party USA for many years. Travelled to Cuba in 2014.
Jim Himes (D CT) His 1988 thesis “The Sandinista Defense Committees and the Transformation of Political Culture in Nicaragua” was a sympathetic portrayal of Marxist government’s civilian spy network. Has worked closely with one Communist Party USA front group.
Kathy Castor (D FL) Has worked closely with Cuba and pro-Castro organizations to open US trade with the communist island.
John Lewis (D GA) Worked closly with the Communist Party USA and Socialist Party USA in the 1960s. In recent years has worked with Democratic Socialists of America members.
Tulsi Gabbard (D HI) Has worked with Democratic Socialists of America members through her political career. Ties to some Filipino-American “former communists”. Worked with Communist Party USA affiliated former Congressman Dennis Kucinich to defend Soviet-Russian puppet Syrian leader Bashar-al-Assad.
Bobby Rush (D IL) Former leader of the Maoist leaning Black Panther Party. Has worked closely with Communist Party USA and Democratic Socialists of America. Has traveled to Cuba twice
Jesus “Chuy” Garcia (D IL) has worked closely with the Communist Party USA for nearly 40 years.
Danny Davis (D IL) Was a member of Democratic Socialists of America in the mid 2000s. Has worked closely with the Communist Party USA since the 1980s. Also close to Committees of Correspondence in the 1990s.
Jan Schakowsky (D IL) Was a member of Democratic Socialists of America in the 1980s and has continued to work closely with the organization. Has also worked closely with some Communist Party USA members.
Dave Loebsack (D IA) has worked closely with Socialist Party USA and
Democratic Socialists of America members for many years.
John Yarmuth (D KY) has worked with Committees of Correspondence for Democracy and Socialism members. Travelled to Cuba in 2011.
Jamie Raskin (D MD) has worked closly with Democratic Socialists of America for many years.
Jim McGovern (D MA) has supported Latin American socialist and revolutionary groups for 20 years. has travelled to Cuba at least three times.
Ayanna Pressley (D MA) Has been endorsed by Democratic Socialists of America. Worked with Freedom Road Socialist Organization front groups and with the pro-Beijing Chinese Progressive Association in Boston.
Andy Levin (D MI) Close to Democratic Socialists of America for at least a decade.
Rashida Tlaib (D MI) Democratic Socialists of America member.
Betty McCollum (D MN) Close ties to communist Laos. Has worked with Democratic Socialists of America members. Traveled to Cuba in 2014.
Ilhan Omar (D MN) Supported by Democratic Socialists of America controlled groups Our Revolution and National Nurses United. Reportedly a self-described “democratic socialist”.
Bennie Thompson (D MS) Was close to the Communist Party USA for many years. Also supported one Communist Workers Party organization. Travelled to Cuba in 2000 and worked with Fidel Castro to train leftist American medical students in Cuba.
William Lacy Clay (D MO) Has worked with Communist Party USA fronts for many years.
Greg Meeks (D NY) Has travelled to Cuba at least 3 times. Was a strong supporter of Venezuelan dictator Hugo Chavez.
Grace Meng (D NY) Very close to the pro-Beijing Asian Americans for Equality. Was also active in a radical Korean-American organization.
Nydia Velasquez (D NY) Close ties to Democratic Socialists of America. Welcomed Fidel Castro to Harlem in 1995.
Yvette Clarke (D NY) Addressed a Workers World Party rally in 2005. Close ally of a prominent Democratic Socialists of America member. Travelled to Cuba in 2007.
Jerry Nadler (D NY) was a member of Democratic Socialist Organizing Committee in the 1970s and was involved with Democratic Socialists of America in the ’80s and ’90s.
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D NY) member of Democratic Socialists of America.
Jose Serrano (D NY) Close ties to the Communist Party USA and Democratic Socialists of America. Was a strong supporter of Venezuelan dictator Hugo Chavez.
G.K. Butterfield (D NC) Some connection to Workers World Party and Freedom Road Socialist Organization. Also close to the “former” communist led Moral Mondays movement.
Marcy Kaptur (D OH) Ties to Democratic Socialists of America. Travelled to Cuba in 2002.
Earl Blumenauer (D OR) Ties to Democratic Socialists of America.
Steve Cohen (D TN) Close ties to Memphis Socialist Party USA members. Travelled to Cuba in 2011.
Sylvia Garcia (D TX) Elected to the Texas state house with Communist Party USA support. Works closely with a major communist influenced organization.
Eddie Bernice Johnson (D TX) Long relationship with the Communist Party USA. Travelled to Cuba at least twice.
Marc Veasey (D TX) Very close relationship with the Communist Party USA.
Lloyd Doggett (D TX) Has been involved with Democratic Socialists of America since the 1980s.
Pramila Jayapal (D WA) Has been involved with Freedom Road Socialist Organization connected groups for many years.
Mark Pocan (D WI) Close to some Democratic Socialists of America activists. Long-time active supporter of Colombian revolutionary movements.
Gwen Moore (D WI) Has been mentored by leading Democratic Socialists of America and Communist Party USA members.
Eleanor Holmes Norton (D DC) Former Young Peoples Socialist League member. Long connection to Democratic Socialists of America.
For more information on socialists and communists in the US Congress watch my acclaimed 90 minute documentary Enemies Within, or read my book Enemies Within: communists, socialists and progressives in the US Congress.

Posted in Socialism, Uncategorized | Tagged , | Leave a comment

Giuliani Publishes Materials Collected in Ukraine

December 16, 2019
Rudy Giuliani, a personal lawyer for U.S. President Donald Trump, has released the results of his investigation into Trump’s impeachment inquiry, which he said showed that the U.S. president did nothing wrong.

Giuliani wrote this on his Twitter account.

«Budapest, Kyiv, Vienna. After hundreds of hours & months of research, I have garnered witnesses & documents which reveal the truth behind this impeachment, which includes no wrongdoing by Donald Trump,” he wrote.

Giuliani illustrated his tweet with footage from a documentary that justifies Trump’s actions.

According to Giuliani, evidence revealed that “corruption in 2016 was so extensive it was POTUS’s duty to ask for US-Ukraine investigation.” The impeachment, he said, served as a cover-up for Democrats.

“Extortion, bribery & money laundering goes beyond Bidens,” Giuliani wrote.

“Also, DNC collusion with Ukraine to destroy candidate Trump,” he added.

Witness Viktor Shokin, according to Trump’s lawyer, has evidence confirming money laundering by Burisma and Bidens.

“[Shokin] fired due to VP Biden’s threat not to release $1B in vital US aid,” Giuliani wrote. “Shokin’s med records show he was poisoned, died twice, and was revived. Lots of heads will roll in Ukraine if this opens up,” he added.

“Witness Yuriy Lutsenko, inheritor of Shokin’s office: Records proving Amb Yovanovitch perjured herself at least twice,” Giuliani said.

According to him, the documents show that former U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine Marie Yovanovitch “was denying visas to witnesses who could prove Biden & Dem corruption.” “Clear doc proof of money laundering by Burisma & Bidens,” Giuliani tweeted.

“Dem’s impeachment for innocent conduct is intended to obstruct the below investigations of Obama-era corruption: billions of laundered $; billions, mostly US $, widely misused; extortion; bribery; DNC collusion with Ukraine to destroy candidate Trump,” he wrote.

On December 4-6, Giuliani met with former Ukrainian Prosecutors General Yuriy Lutsenko and Viktor Shokin, MPs Oleksandr Dubinsky and Andriy Derkach, a former employee of Ukraine’s Embassy in the United States, Andriy Telizhenko, as well as other persons.

Giuliani said he was involved in the production of a documentary that should refute the accusations of Democrats against Trump. After traveling to Ukraine, he said he had collected a lot of useful information to protect the U.S. president from impeachment.

 

taken from:https://www.ukrinform.net/rubric-polytics/2838781-giuliani-publishes-materials-collected-in-ukraine.html

Posted in corruption, Donald Trump, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , | Leave a comment

How NFL Odds, Lines, Point Spreads and Totals Work

When you wager on NFL football it’s important that you understand clearly and concisely how to read odds and how they work. This is basic information that you must know in order to make informed bets.

You’ll need to know how the rotation number, point spread, moneyline and over/under are used and what each means. Each of these terms may be called by another name. The rotation number if often referred to as the number or the rotation mark, moneyline becomes line, point spread is called the spread, and over/under becomes the total. When you come down to it, these are the major terms that can be lumped under the heading odds.

Bookmakers use odds to even out the bets, getting gamblers to wager on both sides of the line by leveling the playing field. Although there is overall parity in the NFL, there are teams that are haves and others that are have-nots. Indianapolis is still superior to Cincinnati but when they play each other the bookies have to get about half of the bettors to put cash on the Bengals. This covers the sportsbooks ensuring they’ll make a decent amount of cash on just about every game.

When you read NFL odds, you’ll first see the date and time of the game on the left and then immediately to the right, there will be two numbers with the name of each team next to one of each numbers. That number is called the rotation number.

Rotation numbers are standard from sportsbook to sportsbook. The number becomes a way to refer to the game and team without mentioning the teams name. It’s a sort of shorthand. Also, the rotation number allows each book to list the games in the same order—numerically. It is, in essence, a way to keep all of the games that are posted each day and throughout the week organized. That makes it easy for the bettor and the bookie.

As an example, let’s consider a matchup between the Indianapolis Colts and the Cincinnati Bengals. In our scenario, the Bengals are the home team, which means they will be listed last and the Colts, as the visitors, will be on the odds slip first. If Indy’s rotation number is 101, then Cincy’s rotation mark would be 102. When you place a bet live at a Vegas sportsbook or over the phone, you would say the number of the team on which you want to wager and not the name.

Date/Time Rotation Number Team Point Spread MoneyLine Total
Sep 15 101 Indianapolis -10.5 -380 37.5
1:00 102 Cincinnati +10.5 +255 37.5

To the right of the team’s name are the different types of odds. Usually the spread will be first. You may then see the moneyline (although some books list these on another slip) and then, finally, the over/under. Thus, all of the basic bets are in one place, allowing for easy access.

The point spread, which is the most popular type of bet, lists the favored team with a minus sign and a number and the underdog with a plus sign and the same number as the favorite. (If neither team is favored, they will be listed as EVEN or PICK.)

The team that has the minus sign, which is the favorite, has points deducted from its final score, while the dog, with the plus sign, has points added. The favorite must beat the spread, which means they have to win by more than the negative number to pay off. The underdog pays off in two instances—if they win outright or if they lose by less than the spread.

In our scenario, Indianapolis is at -10.5 and Cincinnati at +10.5. If you bet on the Colts at -10.5, which means they are favored, they must win by 11 or more for you to collect on your bet. If you wager on Cincinnati, which is the underdog, your bet pays off if they win the game outright or if they lose by less than 11.

Sometimes with NFL odds you’ll see a spread posted as a whole number. Decimals or fractions are usually utilized to ensure there won’t be a tie. If in our example the spread was reset to 10 with the Colts favored and they win by 10, then the game is considered to be a tie, which in betting terms is called a push. If there is a push all bets are off and the sportsbooks return all wagers back to the bettors.

Many people will say that the odds on a spread bet are even, paying 1:1. But this is not true. The actual odds are 0.90:1. For every dollar bet, you can win 90 cents. When checking out the spread, you’ll usually see a number listed next to each spread. That number, which is your stake, is posted as -110. This number tells you how much you have to bet to win $100. If you put $110 on either team, you stand to win $100. If you bet $11.00, you can win $10.00. Every NFL point spread works this way.

The moneyline is different. First, with the moneyline whichever team wins the game pays out. There’s no giving or taking away of points. How do the bookies even the playing field with the moneyline? They do it by making bettors wager more on the favorite to win less and allowing them to bet less to win more on the dog. The favorite is posted with a minus sign and a number. That number represents the amount of cash that has to be wagered in order to win $100. The underdog, on the other hand, is listed with a plus sign in front of a number. That number shows how much a bettor wins when they bet $100.

Taking the exact same match up and odds above, Indy would be listed at -380 and Cincy at +355. When wagering on the Colts, the favored team, a sports bettor would be required to bet $380 to make $100. If they take the Bengals, who are the underdog, a $100 bet can result in a $355 profit.

By the way, there is a relationship between the spread and the moneyline. The exact relationship can vary a bit depending on the book, but the correlation works in this manner:

Point Spread Money Line
-1 -120/+100
-2 -130/+110
-2.5 -140/+120
-3 -155/+135
-3.5 -175/+155
-4 -200/+170
-4.5 -220/+180
-5/-5.5 -240/+190
-6 -270/+210
-6.5 -300/+220
-7 -330/+250
-7.5/-8/-8.5 -360/+280
-9/-9.5 -400/+300
-10 -450/+325

When considering NFL odds, the last type of basic bet you’ll see listed is the total or over/under. The over/under is a prediction regarding the total number of points that both teams will score. As it is with the spread, the total is usually posted as a fraction or decimal and the stake is the same as it is with the point spread (-110)

With NFL odds the over/under can vary but usually it’s somewhere between 35 and 47 points. Let’s say in the Colts and Bengals game that the total is posted at 37.5. If Indy scores 27 and Cincy gets 13 points, the total would be at 40 and the over would win. But if the Colts rack up 35, and they shut out the Bengals, the total of 35 would be under.

If, as it is sometimes with the spread, the total is listed as a whole number, the result may be a push. Let’s say the total is 37 and the Colts score 24 and the Bengals 13 for a total of exactly 37 points. If this happens all bets are returned on the push.

If you are able to interpret NFL odds and know what the various terms mean, such as the rotation number, point spread, moneyline and over/under, you’ll have a basic understanding on what you are betting. Prior to wagering make sure you see our NFL odds page, which carries all the latest odds from the top online sportsbooks. Remember that the odds makers are attempting to even the out the bets on each game. The sports bettor has to analyze each game and the odds and make their bets accordingly in order to win cash.

Posted in sports, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Pelosi on Impeachment Witnesses: ‘It’s Not a Question’ of ‘Proof’ It’s About ‘Allegations’

Today, Nancy Pelosi summed up, in a nutshell, the mission statement of their bogus impeachment: “It’s not a question” of “proof” it’s about “allegations.”

Seriously, Nancy? This just goes to show you how much of a sham their impeachment really is. Back in November, Rep. Devin Nunes condemned the Democrats’ actions, calling them a “sham drama” and “an impeachment process in search of a crime!” He couldn’t have been more correct.

Back in December, Rep. Jim Jordan slammed the Democrats for holding a “predetermined” impeachment.

“I would argue it is not a fast impeachment, it is a predetermined impeachment. A predetermined impeachment done in the most unfair, partisan fashion we have ever seen,” he said. “No subpoena power for Republicans. Depositions done in secret. In the bunker in the basement of the Capitol seventeen people come in for those depositions, no one could be in there except for a handful of folks that Adam Schiff allowed. In those depositions, Chairman Schiff prevented witnesses from answering Republicans’ questions. Every Democrat question got answered. Not every Republican question,” Jordan said. “Democrats denied Republicans the witnesses that we wanted in the open hearings that took place three weeks ago,” Rep. Jordan continued.

“And of course Democrats promised us the whistleblower would testify, and then changed their mind,” Jordan added. “And they changed their mind why? Because the whole world discovered that Adam Schiff’s staff had talked to the whistleblower, coordinated with the whistleblower — a whistleblower with no first-hand knowledge, biased against the president, who worked with Joe Biden, whose lawyer in January of [20]17 said the impeachment process starts then…”

A predetermined impeachment process in search of a crime. That’s exactly what it is.

_____

Matt Margolis is the author of Trumping Obama: How President Trump Saved Us From Barack Obama’s Legacy and the bestselling book The Worst President in History: The Legacy of Barack Obama. You can follow Matt on Twitter @MattMargolis

Posted in hoax, Politics, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , | Leave a comment

Transgendering Children is the New ‘Munchhausen by Proxy’ Child Abuse

 

Munchhausen by Proxy is a familiar and ugly behavior in which parents, often mothers, seek attention by attributing illnesses to their children. They successfully convince children, bystanders, sometimes even medical professionals, that their children are sick.

And they do this, often, by poisoning their children or otherwise interfering with their health.

The James Younger case seems to be showing some of the familiar symptoms of Munchhausen by Proxy.

A video has now come into public light where you can see the father asking James questions about whether or not he’s a girl or a boy. The child answers that he is a girl because his mother told him so.

“You’re a boy, right?” asks Younger.

“No, I’m a girl,” replies James.

“Who told you you’re a girl?” asks  Younger.

“Mommy,” said James.

The father continued to ask questions of his young son about his preferences, including how “mommy puts you in a dress and puts nail polish on you?” The son answers in the affirmative, noting that his mother buys him dresses, hairbands, and hairclips, and that he likes nail polish.

“And what does mommy tell you?” asks the father.

“She tells me I’m a girl,” replies James.

It’s bad enough that lefties insist that 8-year-olds are capable of deciding to take medications that will scar their bodies and prevent them from functioning as adult men or women, but even they aren’t claiming that 3-year-olds can do this. Yet.

And this is a fairly clear sign that the ‘gender syndrome’ here is manufactured.

If the Left hadn’t embraced transgenderism lately, this would be treated as Munchhausen by Proxy.

Younger believed that his ex-wife, Anne Georgulas, was “only giving [James] love and affection if he acted like a girl,” and “was putting my son into time-outs and she would lock him in his room and say that monsters only eat boys.”

The transition therapist, for instance, observed that James is oddly inconsistent when it comes to wanting to be “Luna.” At one point, James was presented with two pieces of paper, one with the word “James” and one with the word “Luna,” and asked to pick the name he preferred. When in the presence of his mother, he chose “Luna.” When in the presence of his father, he chose “James.”

This isn’t really about politics. It’s about the reality that child abuse will be defended if it serves the ideological cause of the Left.

Posted in neoliberals, political correctness, social, social engineering, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

The USMCA “Trade Agreement” violates our Constitution and sets up Global Government

Publius-Huldah's Blog

By Publius Huldah

On November 30, 2018, President Trump, along with the Prime Minister of Canada and the President of Mexico, signed the United States-Mexico-Canada (USMCA) “Trade Agreement”. “Trade” is in quotes, because the document isn’t about “trade” – it’s about setting up global government. “Agreement” is in quotes because the document is a “treaty” – and that invokes the two-thirds ratification requirement of Art. II, §2, cl. 2, US Constit.

The USMCA Treaty (“Treaty”)was negotiated by U.S. Trade Representative, Robert Lighthizer. He is a member of the Council on Foreign Relations, which works to move the United States into the North American Union (NAU). 1

The Treaty advances the economic and regulatory integration of the three Parties. It is the precursor to the political integration the globalists seek with the NAU. 2

1. Summary of objections to the Treaty

Our Constitution and Declaration of Independence are

View original post 3,908 more words

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment